[Pharo-project] 1.3 core and full image

Norbert Hartl norbert at hartl.name
Wed Jun 29 14:51:32 EDT 2011


Am 29.06.2011 um 20:34 schrieb Yanni Chiu:

> I see that you've got your build going now. Anyhow, here's the reply that I started before lunch...
> 
> On 29/06/11 9:50 AM, Norbert Hartl wrote:
>> 
>> ConfigurationOfSeaside30 project lastVersion load
>> 
>> isn't that strange, right? ConfigurationOfSeaside30 references
>> OmniBrowser stable. OmniBrowser stable is 1.3 which references the file
>> OmniBrowser-Standard-lr.541 which can not be found in the repository
>> specified for omnibrowser.
>> 
>> So I'm trying to understand this. Either I'm doing something wrong or
>> the CI stuff is broken. And I don't have a glue how others solve this.
> 
> My build script is at:
> http://hudson.jooshr.org/view/Pharo1.3/job/Pharo1.3-Seaside3.0/ws/p13-seaside3/p13-seaside3.st/*view*/
> 
I'll take a look.

> I've not looked at it in a while. It seems that I load Seaside using Gofer, without going through Metacello. It's done this way, because the ConfigurationOfSeaside30 did not exist, when this build was set up.
> 
I don't use Metacello for most of the stuff in jenkins, too. I thought it might be a good idea to test this in my development image.

> I also do not load Omnibrowser because it was not loading properly, at the time I was setting up my build. I had to adjust the Seaside packages that were loaded, to avoid the need for Omnibrowser.
> 
I figured out the problem but didn't find the file. So this was a dead end.

> In some downstream jobs, I do use Monticello configs, because they were available, when I was setting up those build jobs.
> 
> Your guess that the missing package is in the build cache is likely correct. That missing package is available at:
>  http://source.lukas-renggli.ch/omnibrowser.html
> That should get you past that hurdle in your build, so you can start to customize it.

Hmmm, I though I looked at this location but couldn't find the particular file. 

The package in the package-cache is a two fold thing. I understand it is a big hussle for developers if they have problems because loading of a package fails. With the package-cache you lose to test a setup that is reproducible by others. That's not good but then it is a rare case (or should be) that might not need to be covered.

thanks for your help,

Norbert





More information about the Pharo-dev mailing list